Examples Of De-Extinction Isn T Worth It
“De-extinction Probably isn’t Worth it”. This is the name of an article by Sarah Zielinski. I completely understand what she is talking about in her text, and I agree with her. De-extinction isn’t worth it mainly because it would take attention from other research, harm living creatures, and most of their habitats and food are gone.
If we brought back extinct animals, it would take a lot of funds and research, causing us to forget about other research projects. In Mrs. Zielinski’s article she told us that it could cost millions of dollars to resurrect a species. We could use the funds to do more research on things to benefit us, like cancer research, which is an actual problem in today's world, unlike this made-up problem. If we go on with this, we could forget about endangered animals, since we could revive them. Organizations could lost what little funding they already have, thanks to this huge waste of money and research. What kind of information would we learn from this anyways? …show more content…
Endangered species could go extinct just so we could attempt to resurrect a fluffy elephant.
To go through with this, it would cost an arm and a leg, just to try and resurrect something, and it may not even work. As it said in Back From the Dead, even if it did work, they could become invasive and harm other living species. In Sarah Zielinski’s article, De-extinction probably isn’t worth it, she said it could harm up to 14 currently living species. In an article by Breanna Draxler, she told us that some of the extinct species could bring back retro diseases. Would you risk up to 14 species dying, just for one more species to be
here?
Even if we were successful in bringing them back, where would they stay? We would have to reserve land for them that is just like how it was before they went extinct. Sorry wooly mammoth, but the ice age ended a few thousand years ago. If we did find some place remotely like it, it would make them very confined and they wouldn’t have much space to run around. I’m sure they would be heavily guarded, but trappers will still try and kill them for their hide. What would they eat? These animals could mess up the whole food chain by eating other animals food sources. Other animals could go extinct because of the lack of food.
I am completely against the whole idea of de-extinction, mainly because it would take attention from other types of research. Also because it would harm other species, and most of their food and habitats are gone anyways. If scientist are still considering this, they should go back through the cons, instead of just the pros, because they are overlooking a few major things.
If we brought back extinct animals, it would take a lot of funds and research, causing us to forget about other research projects. In Mrs. Zielinski’s article she told us that it could cost millions of dollars to resurrect a species. We could use the funds to do more research on things to benefit us, like cancer research, which is an actual problem in today's world, unlike this made-up problem. If we go on with this, we could forget about endangered animals, since we could revive them. Organizations could lost what little funding they already have, thanks to this huge waste of money and research. What kind of information would we learn from this anyways? …show more content…
Endangered species could go extinct just so we could attempt to resurrect a fluffy elephant.
To go through with this, it would cost an arm and a leg, just to try and resurrect something, and it may not even work. As it said in Back From the Dead, even if it did work, they could become invasive and harm other living species. In Sarah Zielinski’s article, De-extinction probably isn’t worth it, she said it could harm up to 14 currently living species. In an article by Breanna Draxler, she told us that some of the extinct species could bring back retro diseases. Would you risk up to 14 species dying, just for one more species to be
here?
Even if we were successful in bringing them back, where would they stay? We would have to reserve land for them that is just like how it was before they went extinct. Sorry wooly mammoth, but the ice age ended a few thousand years ago. If we did find some place remotely like it, it would make them very confined and they wouldn’t have much space to run around. I’m sure they would be heavily guarded, but trappers will still try and kill them for their hide. What would they eat? These animals could mess up the whole food chain by eating other animals food sources. Other animals could go extinct because of the lack of food.
I am completely against the whole idea of de-extinction, mainly because it would take attention from other types of research. Also because it would harm other species, and most of their food and habitats are gone anyways. If scientist are still considering this, they should go back through the cons, instead of just the pros, because they are overlooking a few major things.